I put down Thai forset tradition and Suttanta. I like to have my teachings in conformity with the Suttas, but I try not to be overly rigid in doing so, seeking conformity with the principles of the Suttas. I find that sometimes the commentaries are in conflict with the suttas, but I think the commentaries shouldn't be dismissed simply due to a few problems, and I do hold a lot of other Theravada traditions that rely hevily on commentaries and subcomentaries in high esteem (Such as the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition) even though I may disagree with a vew things here or there. I tend to think that many diferences between traditions is based on terminological diferences, personally.

The non-doing of any evil, The performance of what's skillful,The cleansing of one's own mind: This is the Buddhas' teaching.

Very mix-matched... So far I've found truth in each tradition to which I've been introduced, and so I can appreciate each for both its uniqueness and its similarity to others. That, and while most of my reading has focused on the Theravada tradition, the only local Sangha I've found to be accessible to me is Tibetan, and I find that I'm actually very comfortable with that too...

So, like I said, mix-matched. Finding my way is involving a lot of experimentation, but I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing.

I am coming to the realization that my wrong views of materialism, annihilationism, and skepticism of rebirth mean that I do not believe in nibbana, and that I am not a Buddhist. However, I still see Buddhism as the clearest path for seeking freedom from suffering in this lifetime. For that reason, I do not consider myself "a Buddhist" anymore, but I do intend to continue practicing as much of the path as one with wrong view can practice. Does that make me a Buddhist-Non-Buddhist? Maybe. A heavy influence for me is the Thai Forrest traditions, but I'm moving more toward a secular meditative practice supported by developing virtue.

I think many modern teachers do not emphasize the views you mention, Buckwheat, as some sort of a prerequisite.

You don't have to place yourself "outside the fold" unless you want to.

For me, unless we these beliefs motivate us to practice harder and abandon what it unwholesome, they are just an obstacle - another view one holds on to. Better to experience them when the time is right.

Dan74 wrote:I think many modern teachers do not emphasize the views you mention, Buckwheat, as some sort of a prerequisite.

Maybe they should? I'm kind of sick of reading suttas and trying to justify all my ignoring the passages about rebirth, psychic powers, and cosmology. I feel like I am setting aside such a large chunck of the Canon that what I am reading ceases to be what the Buddha taught. I still take the Buddhas advice very, very seriously as the most effective practice to find relief from suffering in this lifetime. I am definitely open to having experiences in the future that bring more more in line with the entirety of the dhamma, but for now I can hardly call my approach "Buddhist". I say this somewhat tongue in cheek, as I still plan to visit Abhayagiri monastary soon, I still meditate, and I look more or less like a Buddhist to outsiders.

Buckwheat wrote:I'm kind of sick of reading suttas and trying to justify all my ignoring the passages about rebirth, psychic powers, and cosmology.

The Suttas aren't a homogenous product; there are obvious and subtle strata, there are occasional contradictions, there are cultural (arti-)facts, there are anachronisms, the teachings spanned many decades in a society that wasn't very concerned with timelines and historical exactitude, the role of Asoka in the creation of an orthodox position is up for discussion, the teachings were eventually conveyed via an island population that was largely out of touch with the Upanisadic milieu of the Buddha, the posited phenomenon of "creeping brahminism" may or may not have a role to play... it's too much to expect that the whole of the received corpus of text and ritual called Theravada be seen as a monolithic orthodoxy that must be absorbed in order for ones practice to be authentically Buddhist. It may not be authentically Theravadan, but neither was the early Sangha.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

Buckwheat wrote:I am coming to the realization that my wrong views of materialism, annihilationism, and skepticism of rebirth mean that I do not believe in nibbana, and that I am not a Buddhist. However, I still see Buddhism as the clearest path for seeking freedom from suffering in this lifetime. For that reason, I do not consider myself "a Buddhist" anymore, but I do intend to continue practicing as much of the path as one with wrong view can practice. Does that make me a Buddhist-Non-Buddhist? Maybe. A heavy influence for me is the Thai Forrest traditions, but I'm moving more toward a secular meditative practice supported by developing virtue.

I think it's quite commendable you are clear headed about this. By not having faith in those basic principals you are certainly not a Buddhist. I am actually quite happy you admit this homes! Better than those deluded homeboys who claim they are "Buddhists" but do not believe or practice the basic ideas.

Buckwheat wrote:I'm kind of sick of reading suttas and trying to justify all my ignoring the passages about rebirth, psychic powers, and cosmology.

The Suttas aren't a homogenous product; there are obvious and subtle strata, there are occasional contradictions, there are cultural (arti-)facts, there are anachronisms, the teachings spanned many decades in a society that wasn't very concerned with timelines and historical exactitude, the role of Asoka in the creation of an orthodox position is up for discussion, the teachings were eventually conveyed via an island population that was largely out of touch with the Upanisadic milieu of the Buddha, the posited phenomenon of "creeping brahminism" may or may not have a role to play... it's too much to expect that the whole of the received corpus of text and ritual called Theravada be seen as a monolithic orthodoxy that must be absorbed in order for ones practice to be authentically Buddhist. It may not be authentically Theravadan, but neither was the early Sangha.

I appreciate your point, daverupa, but I think nibbana is pretty critical for Buddhism, and my doubt even extends to nibbana. I do not doubt that virtue and peace of mind can be developed and strengthened through the Buddhist path, but I do get a little quezy when I hear about the grand eradication of all fetters, release from rebirth, etc. But to reiterate what I do love about Buddhism, I have total confidence in it's ability to develop and strengthen virtue and peace of mind in this lifetime.

Last edited by Buckwheat on Mon Jul 16, 2012 4:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Buckwheat wrote:I am coming to the realization that my wrong views of materialism, annihilationism, and skepticism of rebirth mean that I do not believe in nibbana, and that I am not a Buddhist. However, I still see Buddhism as the clearest path for seeking freedom from suffering in this lifetime. For that reason, I do not consider myself "a Buddhist" anymore, but I do intend to continue practicing as much of the path as one with wrong view can practice. Does that make me a Buddhist-Non-Buddhist? Maybe. A heavy influence for me is the Thai Forrest traditions, but I'm moving more toward a secular meditative practice supported by developing virtue.

I think it's quite commendable you are clear headed about this. By not having faith in those basic principals you are certainly not a Buddhist. I am actually quite happy you admit this homes! Better than those deluded homeboys who claim they are "Buddhists" but do not believe or practice the basic ideas.

Guess you are practicing according to "Outside teachings".

Although you should practice Buddhism homes!!!

Thanks, Durt_Dawg. I do try to practice in line with Buddhism, because it brings positive results even in the short term. Also, I'd hate to be wrong, run around lying and stealing, and end up reborn as a dung beetle. Honesty is such a hugely important central feature of Buddhism that I feel I can verify with my personal experience, that I am trying to be more honest with myself and others. There was a phase where I provisionally accepted rebirth and nibbana in order to dig deeper into Buddhism, and it helped for a while to suspend disbelief, but eventually I hit a wall. Now, my practice is strong enough to be honest about where my heart has doubt.

Just that! *smile*...We Buddhists must find the courage to leave our temples and enter the temples of human experience, temples that are filled with suffering. If we listen to Buddha, Christ, or Gandhi, we can do nothing else. The refugee camps, the prisons, the ghettos, and the battlefields will become our temples. We have so much work to do. ... Peace is Possible! Step by Step. - Samtach Preah Maha Ghosananda "Step by Step" http://www.ghosananda.org/bio_book.html

BUT! it is important to become a real Buddhist first. Like Punna did: Punna Sutta Nate sante baram sokham _()_

I think in general, I would consider myself a Theravadan. However, it seems hard to classify myself in the categories mentioned above, so I think I should elaborate here.

I am a staunch Vipassana follower, learning from the Mahasi Sayadaw lineage, so by right I should say I belong to the Burmese tradition. Though I have immersed myself in the Burmese tradition for quite some time, I am not quite comfortable yet and often look to the Thai forest tradition for some additional support. I tend to find that although many Burmese masters are extremely well-versed and experience in the Buddha's teachings and meditation, they are not as effective when relating to the common layperson. For example, you may easily find any Burmese master who could conveniently conduct a dhamma talk narrating all the intricacies of the Buddha's teaching ranging from the popular kamma topic to the Abhidhamma's citta development process. While this may be beneficial to one who has already got a foreground understanding of Buddhism and is interested to know more about these things, more often the large gathering in a dhamma talk does not seem to understand much of it at the end of the talk. On the contrary, the simple message from a Thai forest ajahn like Ajahn Chah could easily relate to many layperson, and at some point, may even help relieve the listener's burden of his or her existing worries.

I would prefer to understand things from the sutta themselves but then if these are not very clear, I don't mind referring to the classical commentaries to get a clearer picture too.

And since I'm living in a predominantly Mahayana community, I also mingle with them and participate in their dharma ceremonies and chants, but if you insist knowing my identity, I would still identify myself as a Theravadan

I'm curious why so many people seem to have an affinity for the Thai Forest Tradition? I have a great affinity for this tradition as well, especially the Dhammayut sect.

There are a few reasons which I will state.

My primary reason is Thanissaro bhikkhu. I also like the works of Ajaan Fuang, Ajaan Lee, Ajaan Chah, and Ajaan Summedho (among others.)

I think I'm primarily attracted to the Thai forest tradition because, even before I became a Buddhist, I have spent many, many, many days, alone, in the outdoor wilds of North America and have always felt a great affinity to such. I've also noticed that by maintaining a non-hateful, non-agressive demeanor, I've never been attacked by any wild animals, and I've encountered a lot, including rattle snakes, bears and cougars in the wild and have never had any problems with them. In fact, the ONLY time I've ever felt threatened by such animals was when I was with others who tend to "freak out" around such encounters. Of course, YMMV and I'm not suggesting anyone go "Timothy Treadwell" (google it) or any such thing.

Through the works of Ajaan Geoff and his primary teachers, Ajaan Fuang and Ajaan Lee, I have FELT the circulation of "chi" (breath energy) in my body and, well, this works well for me. I also absolutely dislike the "noting" techniques that some of the Burmese (and other) schools use. Having said that, I am well aware that this works well for some and I very much believe in a "to each his own" philosophy. Just one man's opinion...

Sabba rasam dhammaraso jinatiThe flavor of the dhamma exceeds all other flavors

Buckwheat wrote:I am coming to the realization that my wrong views of materialism, annihilationism, and skepticism of rebirth mean that I do not believe in nibbana, and that I am not a Buddhist. However, I still see Buddhism as the clearest path for seeking freedom from suffering in this lifetime. For that reason, I do not consider myself "a Buddhist" anymore, but I do intend to continue practicing as much of the path as one with wrong view can practice. Does that make me a Buddhist-Non-Buddhist? Maybe. A heavy influence for me is the Thai Forrest traditions, but I'm moving more toward a secular meditative practice supported by developing virtue.

Thanks, Durt_Dawg. I do try to practice in line with Buddhism, because it brings positive results even in the short term. Also, I'd hate to be wrong, run around lying and stealing, and end up reborn as a dung beetle. Honesty is such a hugely important central feature of Buddhism that I feel I can verify with my personal experience, that I am trying to be more honest with myself and others. There was a phase where I provisionally accepted rebirth and nibbana in order to dig deeper into Buddhism, and it helped for a while to suspend disbelief, but eventually I hit a wall. Now, my practice is strong enough to be honest about where my heart has doubt.

I'm in the same boat - I was initially drawn to Buddhism because, as I understood it, it was not supernatural in its basic form. Buddhism was supposed to be about a guy who "figured it all out" and then went about teaching people how they could live a better life. No wheels of life, no reincarnation, no deities or gods, no multi headed multi armed Buddha, no heaven or hell concepts, etc. Like you, I'm trying to be honest as well. I'm an atheist and I just simply cannot believe in the supernatural - I don't care if it's a god, deity, ghost, or anything else. I had been under the idea that was the whole point and appeal behind Buddhism - you could essentially follow a good code and teachings that were meant to help you be a better person, keep pure thoughts, help other people, etc. Now that I've been digging deeper into Theravada and Mahayana, this doesn't necessarily seem to be the case (especially with Mahayana).

I'm not trying to be disrespectful to anyone on here, I too am being honest. Buddhism appeals to me on it's base values and that's something I can get behind as an atheist. I'm not prepared to cross a metaphysical line to do that though - so does that also make me somewhat of a Buddhist non Buddhist? Isn't there also a small following of people out there who also think that Buddha's original teachings got inflated into an actual full blown religion which, as I understand it, it wasn't supposed to be? Someone turned me onto a book called "Buddhism Without Beliefs", but I haven't read it yet.

tattoogunman wrote:... Isn't there also a small following of people out there who also think that Buddha's original teachings got inflated into an actual full blown religion which, as I understand it, it wasn't supposed to be? Someone turned me onto a book called "Buddhism Without Beliefs", but I haven't read it yet.

I'm curious where you got the idea that it "wasn't supposed to be"..."inflated into an actual full blown religion"?I remember reading a statement in one of the Nikaya Suttas where one of the major points of kamma in the Buddha's doctrine is that it is changeable (the effects of it are mutable), because otherwise there would be no point of a religious life. This viewpoint of kamma is somewhat fundamental to the 4 Noble Truths; specifically that there can be a cessation of suffering. Without the 4 Noble Truths, there's not much left that's Buddhism.

In "Buddhism Without Beliefs" Batchelor had to re-write the entire life of Siddhartha Gautama in order to fit his paradigm.

Not sure you're going to find any Secular Humanism that's still going to fall under Buddhism. May just want to find a meditation practice & a set of ethics that suit you and go from there.

EDIT:Just read the "Theravada Buddhism in a Nutshell" that Aloka posted. I still think if you rule out literal rebirth; then there really isn't any point in becoming a monk. If you're ready to step away from the world, you'd have a lot more fun going on a week-long bender of hookers & blow, then blow your brains out before that momentary satisfaction flees.If you want to stick around longer, live a life of luxury, wait till your prognosis is grim *then* go have your week-long bender.The whole point about the precept on intoxicants is that they make you heedless; in other words, there does exist an amount of intoxicants that will distract you from your problems (at least long enough to go out with a bang).Just my opinions as a noob.

tattoogunman wrote:... Isn't there also a small following of people out there who also think that Buddha's original teachings got inflated into an actual full blown religion which, as I understand it, it wasn't supposed to be? Someone turned me onto a book called "Buddhism Without Beliefs", but I haven't read it yet.

I'm curious where you got the idea that it "wasn't supposed to be"..."inflated into an actual full blown religion"?I remember reading a statement in one of the Nikaya Suttas where one of the major points of kamma in the Buddha's doctrine is that it is changeable (the effects of it are mutable), because otherwise there would be no point of a religious life. This viewpoint of kamma is somewhat fundamental to the 4 Noble Truths; specifically that there can be a cessation of suffering. Without the 4 Noble Truths, there's not much left that's Buddhism.

In "Buddhism Without Beliefs" Batchelor had to re-write the entire life of Siddhartha Gautama in order to fit his paradigm.

Not sure you're going to find any Secular Humanism that's still going to fall under Buddhism. May just want to find a meditation practice & a set of ethics that suit you and go from there.

EDIT:Just read the "Theravada Buddhism in a Nutshell" that Aloka posted. I still think if you rule out literal rebirth; then there really isn't any point in becoming a monk. If you're ready to step away from the world, you'd have a lot more fun going on a week-long bender of hookers & blow, then blow your brains out before that momentary satisfaction flees.If you want to stick around longer, live a life of luxury, wait till your prognosis is grim *then* go have your week-long bender.The whole point about the precept on intoxicants is that they make you heedless; in other words, there does exist an amount of intoxicants that will distract you from your problems (at least long enough to go out with a bang).Just my opinions as a noob.

As a noob (like you), the history that I've read of Buddhism was that he (Buddha) set out to provide his teachings to people who wanted to become enlightened. His teachings were not provided as a means to start a religion, but to help people live better lives. The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path do not require any element of mysticism or religion to do in my opinion - it's just a guide on how to live a better life. Same thing with the Five Precepts, no religious component required. What I mean by inflated into a religion, obviously there are various sects/factions (whatever you want to call them) of Buddhism that absolutely took it to that level. Mahayana for example - multiple Buddha's who can manifest themselves over billions of different galaxies and planets, multi limbed beings, etc. - definitely what I consider the "religion" level. I don't have a huge problem with the karma element, I can see cause & effect with no problem. The concept of reincarnation seems to be a contentious issue - I've found some references that Buddha did not actually teach the reincarnation idea, but of course there are others that say yes.

To many, Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom' and the Buddhist path can be summed up as:

(1) to lead a moral life,(2) to be mindful and aware of thoughts and actions, and(3) to develop wisdom and understanding.

Was the Buddha a God?

He was not, nor did he claim to be. He was a man who taught a path to enlightenment from his own experience.

Is Buddhism Scientific?

Science is knowledge which can be made into a system, which depends upon seeing and testing facts and stating general natural laws. The core of Buddhism fit into this definition, because the Four Noble truths (see below) can be tested and proven by anyone in fact the Buddha himself asked his followers to test the teaching rather than accept his word as true. Buddhism depends more on understanding than faith.

What is Karma?

Karma is the law that every cause has an effect, i.e., our actions have results. This simple law explains a number of things: inequality in the world, why some are born handicapped and some gifted, why some live only a short life. Karma underlines the importance of all individuals being responsible for their past and present actions. How can we test the karmic effect of our actions? The answer is summed up by looking at (1) the intention behind the action, (2) effects of the action on oneself, and (3) the effects on others. (I can deal with this and look at it outside of a metaphysical/mystical level)

1. There is no almighty God in Buddhism. There is no one to hand out rewards or punishments on a supposedly Judgement Day.

2. Buddhism is strictly not a religion in the context of being a faith and worship owing allegiance to a supernatural being.

3. No saviour concept in Buddhism. A Buddha is not a saviour who saves others by his personal salvation. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha as his incomparable guide who indicates the path of purity, he makes no servile surrender. A Buddhist does not think that he can gain purity merely by seeking refuge in the Buddha or by mere faith in Him. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others

4. A Buddha is not an incarnation of a god/God (as claimed by some Hindu followers). The relationship between a Buddha and his disciples and followers is that of a teacher and student.

5. The liberation of self is the responsibility of one's own self. Buddhism does not call for an unquestionable blind faith by all Buddhist followers. It places heavy emphasis on self-reliance, self discipline and individual striving.

6. Taking refuge in The Triple Gems i.e. the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha; does not mean self-surrender or total reliance on an external force or third party for help or salvation.

7. Dharma (the teachings in Buddhism) exists regardless whether there is a Buddha. Sakyamuni Buddha (as the historical Buddha) discovered and shared the teachings/ universal truths with all sentient beings. He is neither the creator of such teachings nor the prophet of an almighty God to transmit such teachings to others.

Buddha says:

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.

"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."

I understand that it's easier to lump Buddhism with the label of "religion", but I'll argue that it's not because at it's root, it doesn't have the generally accepted requisites. This seems to be a fairly common divisive issue in the Buddhist community and I get that. But I feel that I can follow the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path quite easily without having to resort to super natural, metaphysical, mystical, magical, (whatever) sources for its origin. Unless someone can point me to something of the contrary?? Like I said, I can get on board with the concept of karma, it's a term I've been using for years and I'm perfectly fine with cause/effect.

tattoogunman wrote:Karma is the law that every cause has an effect, i.e., our actions have results. This simple law explains a number of things: inequality in the world, why some are born handicapped and some gifted, why some live only a short life. Karma underlines the importance of all individuals being responsible for their past and present actions. How can we test the karmic effect of our actions? The answer is summed up by looking at (1) the intention behind the action, (2) effects of the action on oneself, and (3) the effects on others. (I can deal with this and look at it outside of a metaphysical/mystical level)

Just wanted to clarify that what you posted from buddhanet.net in no way contradicts teachings on literal rebirth.

When we started planning to visit Thailand, we contacted—maybe I should say, tried to contact—quite a few Theravadin Wats. We don't want to ordain, but wanted to become part of the lay community around the Wat, and contribute seva and dana. Most of the centers did not reply. Of the few that did, most assumed we were just interested in their standard Rains retreat program. Only one began a dialogue, and that soon sputtered out and came to nothing.

So here we are in Thailand, practicing seriously but without any association or community. Frankly, we don't like what we see in most of the Wats. They are either intent on merit-making or run a paid guesthouse program for foreigners. We don't fit into either of those boxes, so we are pretty much ignored.

We are attracted to Buddhadasa Bhikku's style of teaching. Unfortunately, a big organization has formed around his legacy and we already have had enough of that sort of thing, thank you. We'd love to find a small forest Wat with a good teacher in the style of Buddhadasa, but without the politics that make most religious organizations so distasteful. Any ideas?

BuddhaDave wrote:When we started planning to visit Thailand, we contacted—maybe I should say, tried to contact—quite a few Theravadin Wats. We don't want to ordain, but wanted to become part of the lay community around the Wat, and contribute seva and dana. Most of the centers did not reply. Of the few that did, most assumed we were just interested in their standard Rains retreat program. Only one began a dialogue, and that soon sputtered out and came to nothing.

So here we are in Thailand, practicing seriously but without any association or community. Frankly, we don't like what we see in most of the Wats. They are either intent on merit-making or run a paid guesthouse program for foreigners. We don't fit into either of those boxes, so we are pretty much ignored.

We are attracted to Buddhadasa Bhikku's style of teaching. Unfortunately, a big organization has formed around his legacy and we already have had enough of that sort of thing, thank you. We'd love to find a small forest Wat with a good teacher in the style of Buddhadasa, but without the politics that make most religious organizations so distasteful. Any ideas?

Perhaps you could make contact with Ven Apichatto - here on Dhamma Wheel . Also, Ajahn Dhammanando, visits here infrequently. He now resides in a small kuti/wat in one of the villages in the forest above Chiang Mai.kind regards,

Ben

Learn this from the waters:in mountain clefts and chasms,loud gush the streamlets,but great rivers flow silently.